Google Blogoscoped

Forum

Bali Climate Change Conference  (View post)

Tuari [PersonRank 0]

Thursday, December 6, 2007
12 years ago3,870 views

Is there a map available that actually shows, not only participation/signing, but actual compliance of the Kyoto protocol? It would be cool if a google maps tool was made that would show each country's emissions over time as well, so we can see if countries actually meet their goals that they signed up for.

AC [PersonRank 1]

12 years ago #

10,000 people FLEW into Bali, the most out of the way place I can think of.

Oh, and don't forget the advance group to do setup: 1K probably.

And spouses that came along: 3K.

I'll believe that climate change is man-made when the people in charge of nagging us behave like it is.

-AC

Shane Mitchell [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

So in other words, almost every nation in the world is trying to reduce emissions except the USA, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases!

MarWi [PersonRank 3]

12 years ago #

Quite a misleading map you posted here (I know it's from Wikipedia, but still). Of all the countries that ratified the Protocol (all the green ones), 137 countries have no obligation to reduce greenhouse gases whatsoever, including China and India. Not that hard to sign a treaty that doesn't affect you. Besides, as Tuari mentioned, the map should rather show countries that comply with the Treaty rather than the ones that only ratified it.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

Why is China not obliged to reduce greenhouse gases MarWi? If so, that map could indeed be misleading, as they are a huge part of the problem, according to (again) that Wikipedia article:

<<In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from the People's Republic of China were about 54% of the USA emissions. However, China is now building on average one coal-fired power plant every week, and plans to continue doing so for years. Various predictions see China overtaking the US in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010, and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 2006.>>

MarWi [PersonRank 3]

12 years ago #

The Kyoto Protocol basically distinguishes between developed countries and developing countries. At the time the treaty was negotiated (1997) China, along with India and Brazil, were regarded as developing countries. With regards to the need for developing countries to grow, they were not given any reduction targets. The treaty only came into effect 2004 and by that time China, India and Brazil already were major air polluters, but still weren't required to reduce anything. This is the main reason the US is still not ratifying the protocol. Here you can see the reduction targets by country under Annex B : unfccc.int/resource/docs/convk ... . Even some of the developed countries are allowed to increase there output in greenhouse gases for specific reasons (most notably Australia, which just ratified the protocol).

MarWi [PersonRank 3]

12 years ago #

You know, I don't want to start a discussion about the pro and cons of the Kyoto Protocol. There is a bunch of websites dedicated to that. I just think one should look at that map with caution. Here is a List of the countries with their respective reduction targets: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ...

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

[Added an update to the post]

olivier [PersonRank 1]

12 years ago #

"So in other words, almost every nation in the world is trying to reduce emissions except the USA, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases!"
With the exception of....California...
...california über alles, ad-lib....

TS [PersonRank 1]

12 years ago #

Philipp – sorry, but you are getting snowed by MarWi: it is dishonest to talk about absolute numbers per country, without looking at population. China has 4.3 times the population, so the actual emission per person is about a factor of 7 less than the US. It is true China is not being asked to reduce emissions, but how could they, given they currently use 7 times less per person?

It's a common rhetorical trick by opponents of Kyoto to only talk about growth rates and not absolute numbers, and much of the media eagerly swallows this idea. Now, if someone where to propose a global limit on emissions per person, say at the level of 50% of the US, I am pretty sure China and India would eagerly accept. Of course, this might not give a big reduction, so maybe 30% is more appropriate? (Of course, if everyone would use their 30%, this would still result in an increase – that is how high US emissions are.)

Note I am not trying to argue that such a limit per person is realistic in the near term. It has no chance to be passed because rich countries, and in particular the US, would never agree. So some middle ground has to be found to make things happen. But let's not forget what is being done here: the US, and to a lesser extend other developed countries, are trying to grandfather in their much higher emissions. It is simply not realistic to require China and India to reduce their emissions if they use so much less per person. Limit them to something above the current level and (significantly) below the current US level, presumably a level that every country should follow in a few decades, yes, but requiring everyone to reduce just seems patently unfair.

Unfortunately, this seems to the a popular recent approach in US mainstream publications, to basically blame China for the failure of Kyoto: demand something (a reduction or very stringent limits) that you known the other side (China) cannot agree on, and then blame them for failure. Don't fall for it. There is a lot wrong about various issues in China, but on global warming they are not the main obstacle.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

[Updated again]

MarWi [PersonRank 3]

12 years ago #

You see, now you have the discussion and I can tell you it's a never ending story. For example, if you consider that there are millions of people in inner China that are still old-fashioned farmers and thus do not emit considerable amounts of greenhouse gases, China's emission per capita are extremely watered-down (same goes for India and Brazil). "Modern" Chinese people are comparable to Americans both in numbers and in greenhouse gas emission (per capita or as a group). It is fair to assume that in the future there will be more not less people in China adapting to or being enabled to a modern lifestyle and it's also fair to say that this is going to be a problem if it's not already one. You could go on with this number crunching by looking at the emissions per GDP, emission per (GDP per capita), and so on. You can proof whatever you want by using the right statistics. Fact is China and the US are both using the opposite side as an excuse. Neither has really good arguments if you look closely. Anyway, there will be a successor to the (in my opinion in many ways flawed) Kyoto Protocol and hopefully all countries will have to and are willing to bear their share of the burden.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

Yes, I think we can all agree on that last bit MarWi ("we" the people debating here, not "we" the countries of this world... the latter remains to be seen).

Andy Wong [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

"Washington did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, arguing that mandatory cuts in emissions would harm the economy..."

Washington effectively admitted American could not manage the economy well if ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, while the other nations can.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ...

After all, US administration and its alias medias had successfully shifted the blame, make the public to ignore gas_emissions_per_capita, introduce a load of feel-good only environment measurements.

Cal J [PersonRank 1]

12 years ago #

So if everybody adhered to Kyoto...that would accomplish what, again? I seem to have missed the actual IMPACT of this, what with all the noise from both sides of the issue complaining about who does or does not contribute more pollution.

Martin Porcheron [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

While I am not entirely convinced by the green house gases causing global warming, reducing emissions isn't going to cause the planet harm, and at the end of the day, we need the current atmosphere (CO2, O2 percentages) to last as long as possible.

TS [PersonRank 1]

12 years ago #


MarWi – no, sorry, this is not China and US having equal fault. It's the US, primarily. Doesn't mean everybody else is completely clean, but when the country with the basically highest consumption per capita, and the overall highest consumption, is not willing to reduce, then it is them that are blocking. (I am saying "basically highest" because there are a few small countries, mainly in the middle east, that use more per capita.)

BTW, I don't think modern Chinese would be really comparable to the US – you mean comparable as in 100% of the US per capita, or comparable as in 50% of the US (i.e., about 100% of Japan, Germany or many other developed countries) ? Or 25-30% of US per capita, as in 100% of Hong Kong or France? (Numbers according to United Nations) Any reason to believe they use more than people in Hong Kong? I think your estimates for rich Chinese are way off. And I am not sure how the fact that many Chinese are still farmers should play out – yes, they use less, but on the other hand poor people will get a lot more marginal benefit out of an extra ton of carbon dioxide (e.g., heating or no heating) than an American.

Yes, I hope for a successor to Kyoto, and a fair agreement. But what is fair? It seems even many "moderate" American's have strange ideas about fairness when it comes to CO2, and this will make it so much harder to come to a fair agreement in the future. I have to fully agree with Andy Wong on his last sentence.

Derek Wall [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

We have to stop the destruction of nature and indigenous people, last weeks New Scientist has an excellent and shocking article on this:

‘I saw that on the banks of the Indragiri river on the edge of the Kerumutan peatlands. Here, Kuala Cenaku, a community of 7000 people, has for centuries harvested rattan and honey, cut a few trees and planted rubber trees on what they regard as their lands. Then last year loggers arrived, claimed the land had been given to them by the government, and cut down the forest for 5 kilometres south of the river.

Kuala Cenaku’s forest is now a wasteland of charred wood on drying peat. In places the Duta Palma group has planted palm oil trees. Yet community head Mursyid Muhammad Ali said his people had scared off the planters and are determined to take the land back. At the jetty, I saw a boatful of new rubber seedlings for restoring the forest.’

More here newscientist.com/channel/opini ...

or read my take another-green-world.blogspot.c ...

Craig C [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

The United States once again demonstrates that they are for the world only when it is to their benefit.

Surely this would be an appropriate time to talk about economic and political sanctions from the UN to stem the damage done to the rest of the world in the form of CO2 pollution and political sabotage…

This is hardly surprising I suppose. The special interest control of the US poltical system doesn’t resemble the democracy and liberty the americans try to impose on others. But it is very sad. Without the US here can be no agreement from China. Without China there’s no India. Without them all we’re all in a lot of trouble…

Once again, please god save us from George W. Bush…

Craig (Brisbane, Australia).

This thread is locked as it's old... but you can create a new thread in the forum. 

Forum home

Advertisement

 
Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About
Advertisement

 

This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!